ZoneAlarm vs. Sygate

Printable View

March 1st, 2005, 11:44 AM
scratchONtheBOX

ZoneAlarm vs. Sygate

ZoneAlarm vs. Sygate

This will be more likely a personal opinion. But it’s worth mentioning since it’s a personal experience. Well, let’s get started. On the ratings here in AO, ZoneAlarm appears to be ahead, but some of the AO guys tested and used Sygate SPF. I’ve been testing it too, but some issues bother me. Check it out.

My BoX
SoftWare
Microsoft Windows XP
Professional
SP2
Internet Connection Firewall (SP2 built-in) is ON.

HardWare
Intel Pentium III
868 Mhz
256 MB of RAM

ZoneAlarm [Z] vs. Sygate [S]

Description
1. ZoneAlarm
version:5.5.062.011
TrueVector version:5.5.062.011
Driver version:5.5.062.011

2. Sygate Personal Firewall
Version 5.6
Build 2808

INSTALLATION
1. Z – smooth
2. S – one small error warning, but it continues to install. Product: Sygate Personal Firewall – Error 1406. Could not write value to key \Software. System error . Verify that you have sufficient access to that key, or contact your support personnel. – I thought this error is because I am using an alternative user with Admin rights, however, for the benefit of the doubt, I uninstall and reinstall under ADMINISTRATOR user, and still the same error message pops up. See attached.

STARTUP
1. Z – smooth
2. S – error message. After installing Sygate and everytime it restarts, this message is being logged – Faulting application Smc.exe, version 5.6.0.2808, faulting module trident.dll, version 5.5.0.0, fault address 0x0007394a. See attached.

CONFIGURATION, INTERFACE & PERFORMANCE
1. Z – Working worthwhile with ZoneAlarm, I find it easy to configure. Adding that the interface helps well in navigating the menus and options.
2. S - I don’t get it, with this cool piece of tool, why it is very slow in my box? Overall performance of my PC is very slow when: 1) Configuring SPF 2) ONLINE.

Is it something with my PC not complying with the requirement of Sygate?

BTW, SPF doesn’t even have an Uninstall icon readily available, LoLz

Need some input on this like some of the advantages of SPF over ZoneAlarm.

Thanks a lot.

Yo!
March 1st, 2005, 02:09 PM
Cope57

Quote:

Internet Connection Firewall (SP2 built-in) is ON.

Having two firewalls running at the same time (XP firewall and Sygate), could possibly give you errors.
Running two of any program could also give different errors. Like running two anti-virus at the same time could possibly conflict.
March 1st, 2005, 02:31 PM
wiskic10_4

I've been using Sygate for about a year and a half now, and I am quite satisfied w/ it's performance. I've installed it on several client's boxes, every OS from 98 to XP (Be sure to disable or otherwise "make compatible" w/ XP's windows firewall). I've never gotten an error messages on the install or otherwise - however, on 98 boxes it does have an annoying little bug that causes it to be listed as "(not responding)" when you pull up the task manager (still functions as it should, though). I'd recommend Sygate to anyone using a home box, combined w/ an antivirus and appropriate malware-removal software, of course (I like AVG for an AV and AdAware, Spybot, HJT, etc for malware). Sygate is super-easy to configure, too - I can walk a know-nothing user through the configuration in about a minute - double-click the tray icon, right-click the proggies listed, and select "Allow", "Ask" or "Block" - simple as that... Nice logger, too...

ZoneAlarm on the other hand... meh... I installed it a while back, and as I recall, I had several problems w/ it under 98 - likely errors on my part (may have had conflicting processes running, etc), combined w/ the shaky-stability of 98... got a couple of blue-screens... I switched back to Sygate within 30 minutes, and have used it every since...

To each his own - I'm sure there's plenty here to vouch for ZA - but me, I'm a Sygate man. ;)

-Wiski
March 1st, 2005, 03:15 PM
br_fusion

Personally, I hate ZoneAlarm. The problem I was having, along with everyone else I know, is that when you disable ZoneAlarm's Firewall capablities, it still continues to block services. Even after you shut the program down and kill it in the taskmgr, it still continues to block services. For the longest time I didnt understand why Internet Explorer wasn't logging on to certain Java-relate sites. It was all because of ZoneAlarm. I finally uninstalled it, and mulitple problems Ive been having ceased.

Go Iptables!
March 1st, 2005, 03:42 PM
scratchONtheBOX

Thanks for the feedback

Quote:

Having two firewalls running at the same time (XP firewall and Sygate)

Hi Cope57,

I had been aware of having more two (2) or more application installed for the same purpose give some uncertain errors in a box but in some instance it is working well.

I had updated my Win XP Pro Box with SP2 a week ago after reviewing it for quite sometime (MORE ON HARDWARE ISSUES) coz few of my devices (like the sound card and modem) are quite old and I had to make sure.

Since then, ZoneAlarm had never conflicted with Windows ICF in this case. I did not find any problem with it.

It’s like “TWO (COMPATIBLE) WALLS’ BETTER THAN ONE”.

---

wiskic10_4,

You had a good experience with Sygate, and I am just wondering if you have any further tip on this - "make compatible" w/ XP's windows firewall.

Also, I am now using AVG for my antivirus and a bunch of ADWARE/SPYWARE remover (Ad-Aware, Spybot S&D, Spy Sweeper and XoftSpy) and HijackThis for hijackers.

In the case of Sygate, I had installed it to give it a try but seem to have conflicts with my Box. I should review more of it and have a feedback soon.

Just like you said, everybody has his/her favorites!

---

br_fusion

Never crossed that situation, I wonder if you had tried to configure it in the ZoneAlarm Control Center?

---

Thanks for the feedbacks.

BTW, before, I used Norton AV, it’s presence and status (updated or not) can be monitored by ZoneAlarm, but AVG cannot be detected.

Yo!
March 1st, 2005, 03:42 PM
Computernerd22

I used both firewalls for 2000 & XP. Zonealarm is nice software, and very user friendly and very configureable aswell. Sygate is more for advanced users IMO. I personally choose Sygate over ZA. Also, when you do deside to setup your firewall, make sure its configured properly I say that I mean keep a log file, don't set your firewall to allow everything through because its more "convient" just defeats the purpose of having one.
March 1st, 2005, 05:08 PM
Jebo Majku

Hi. The error you are getting....

http://support.installshield.com/kb/...icleid=Q107090

You have been playing around with the rights & privaledges of your windows accounts, haven't you?

I use Sygate exclusevily. I know of some admins who hate it and claim it keeps crashing their boxes. I haven't had any of those problems. But I will admit that wierd stuff starts to happen when you turn on some of the fancy features. (e.g. anti-MAC & anti-IP....) If you are going to use them - make sure you RTFM - know what they do and know wheather you need to do some advanced configuration. Sygate have a very helpful support forum on their site that can answer just about any question you have about their product.
March 1st, 2005, 05:10 PM
SawPer

Re: ZoneAlarm vs. Sygate

Quote:

Originally posted here by scratchONtheBOX
ZoneAlarm vs. Sygate
BTW, SPF doesn’t even have an Uninstall icon readily available, LoLz

Have to go to Control Panel-Add/Remove Programs

I like Sygate way more than ZoneAlarm and Norton Internet Security for that matter.
I have installed all three for a bunch of different customers.
NIS sometimes pop up stupid questions when it detects something that it wants you to decide what to do with. And confuses most customers more than help them. Has too many screens, and actually makes it harder to go back in to reconfigure rules afterwards...

Customers using ZA have had compatibility issues with other software not working correctly, so I ended up having to remove ZA after some long troublshooting...
ZA might be easy to intsall and to get the initial config setup, but again, I have customers getting confused if they want to go back in and change something they didn't want configured.

Sygate, while some people think it's meant for the advanced user, I think it's meant for both the novice user and the advanced user. Every thing is laid out in just a few screens, and it's very easy to use, easy to get back in and change rules, but still gives the advanced user full control over everything you would need to configure.
Also like the real time monitor the best with Sygate.

Your installation problem with Sygate is very unfortunate. Never had any problems installing it. But what ever the problem is, is probably why you are experiencing the slowness and all other strange things happening with it.
I would still recommend trying to figure out how to fix the installation problem with Sygate.

By the way, you don't get similar strange errors with any other software? I've seen similar problems with computers with bad memory. Maybe should run a memory tester?

Hope you will get it resolved! :)
March 1st, 2005, 06:12 PM
scratchONtheBOX

Well, that explains some

Quote:

Hi. The error you are getting....
http://support.installshield.com/kb...ticleid=Q107090

- Well, that explains some. Thanks for the link.

Quote:

You have been playing around with the rights & privaledges of your windows accounts, haven't you?

- No, I haven’t.

Quote:

Have to go to Control Panel-Add/Remove Programs

- Most of the TOOLS I used (AVG, ZoneAlarm, Ad-Aware, Spybot S&D, Spy Sweeper and XoftSpy) had a READY UNINSTALL ICON. Just a thought though.

Quote:

Customers using ZA have had compatibility issues with other software not working correctly, so I ended up having to remove ZA after some long troublshooting...
ZA might be easy to intsall and to get the initial config setup, but again, I have customers getting confused if they want to go back in and change something they didn't want configured.

- I had also installed ZA to a couple of customers and some friends of mine but I never had heard any complaint. Although I had some time spent explaining with some greenhorn customers who were really concern about the popup question MOST firewall are asking before you allow/reject such connection. It all falls to user orientation I guess.

Quote:

By the way, you don't get similar strange errors with any other software?

No. AFAIK, not yet. It’s just maybe an isolated case.

Thanks!

Yo!
March 2nd, 2005, 05:24 AM
Falcon21

I have been using sygate personal firewall for a few years now and it run fine except sometime some files will get corrupted and have to use scandisk to fix the problem or reinstall the program. The interface is simple (my opinion) compared to ZA where you have to click here and there to access the correct function. So I can quickly configure Sygate. On the other note, I see almost all malware that will disable security application will surely disable ZA since it is so popular....
March 2nd, 2005, 03:42 PM
scratchONtheBOX

Quote:

I have been using sygate personal firewall for a few years now and it run fine except sometime some files will get corrupted and have to use scandisk to fix the problem or reinstall the program. The interface is simple (my opinion) compared to ZA where you have to click here and there to access the correct function. So I can quickly configure Sygate. On the other note, I see almost all malware that will disable security application will surely disable ZA since it is so popular....

Thanks for the feedback Falcon21.

However, ZA’s interface is not that bad at all, configuration is easy like I said while ago (well, in my opinion as well).

About the popularity idea, I guess you have a point.

Yo!
March 2nd, 2005, 07:13 PM
GandalfTheGray

I have been using ZA, both the free version and ZA Pro, for a number of years on WIN 98SE, W2K, XP Home and XP Pro, probably on a total of 15-20 machines. I have never had one minute's trouble with it and have never identified a true incompatability. If I used it like a turnkey system, it worked fine. If I tried to apply some more challenging requirements, it worked ok, but made the flexibility of a hardware firewall attractive. I have tried Sygate as well. Had a similar experience in a limited evaluation, but I saw no compelling reason to change. I guess I'm not adding much real information to the discussion, but it seemed to me that ZA was getting banged around a little without anyone saying they had been successful with it.
March 13th, 2005, 10:38 PM
scratchONtheBOX

In WinXP SP1

I've tried sygate personal firewall again, with a different BoX config (FRESH INSTALL), a WinXP Pro SP1 (PIII, 256 Ram) and the following is the observations I made:

1. No errors on installation and startup.
2. Still it is very very slow. No other FW is present or enabled. (Any other comments?)

I guess I'm QUITTING sygate.

Still HAPPY with ZA.

Yo!
March 14th, 2005, 05:01 PM
shakeshuck

My 2 cents

I tried to set up an Me box as an internet gateway and ZA wouldn't work for me. As soon as internet sharing was turned on at the FW, it tried routing everything via a non-connected dial-up modem instead of a USB DSL modem. Turning it off routed all as expected.

My own complaint with Sygate (and Kerio for that matter) is that not all requests are logged (or at least not by default, and I don't know how to turn them on). I have had a few problems when I have known the firewall is stopping a request, but I haven't known why, where, and how to change it.

I still choose to use Sygate, however.
July 21st, 2005, 10:04 PM
dogman

ZoneAlarm is #1 in my machine,heres why...

"Even after many years, the (free) ZoneAlarm personal firewall from Zone Labs is the only personal firewall to "adaptively" stealth port 113. Unlike any other firewall or NAT router (any of which could also do the same) this allows port 113 to be stealthed to any passing Internet scanners or probes, but "unstealthed" for any valid IDENT connection attempts originating from remote servers with which the user's computer is attempting to connect. (Since this could easily be done by any personal firewall or even NAT routers, I am hopeful that this feature might yet appear in other products.)

"Adaptive Stealthing" means that when a TCP SYN packet arrives to request a connection to your machine's port 113, ZoneAlarm checks, on the fly, to see whether your machine currently has any sort of "relationship" with the remote machine (such as a pending outgoing connection attempt). If so, the remote machine is considered to be "friendly" and its IDENT request packet is allowed to pass through ZoneAlarm's firewall. But if the IDENT originating machine is not known to ZoneAlarm as a "friendly" machine, the connection requesting packet is dropped and discarded, rendering port 113 stealth to all unknown port scanners. It's very slick. "

ZA...those guys really know there stuff!
July 21st, 2005, 11:28 PM
Egaladeist

Hi dogman,

Man...what's with you today...you keep posting in old threads...did you just get a job with Zone Alarm? This is the second ZA thread you've dragged out.

Eg
July 22nd, 2005, 02:27 AM
Relyt

It's unfortunate, but with all that gibberish about stealthing, looks like he's sleeping with grc as well.

Quote:

Zone Alarm is still the only personal firewall to offer this sort of adaptive dynamic IDENT port handling.

Source

Anybody can cut and paste, he should at least write his own product review!

~cheers~
July 22nd, 2005, 02:31 AM
catch

Although this is an old thread... something stood out to me:

Quote:

I had been aware of having more two (2) or more application installed for the same purpose give some uncertain errors in a box but in some instance it is working well.

I see this type of logic frequently... "No errors, must be working well." sadly, this logic is very flawed.

Whenever you have multiple, unmapped subjects handling the same objects, especially in a redundant manner something can never be said to be "working well", something along the lines of "No errors _yet_, and the prediction of future errors is not possible. Consequently this situation is not stable."

The reason errors are so unpredictable is that even if both subjects are predictable, you set yourself up for countless synchronization (improper serialization/race conditions) issues, reliant on non-predictable external factors (memory assignments, system loads, etc).

Anyhow...

cheers,

catch

Edited to add: Ewww, GRC is just gross.
July 22nd, 2005, 09:45 AM
DakX

I have used both firewall. First sygate and now Zonealarm. I must say that i have encounterd the error showing it as not repsonding. Also i had the feeling that it slowed my startup down. I never had any problems installing it. I don't find Zonealarm to be more userfriendly, with sygate you can see what program are running and where those come from. With Zone thats not alway's clear, and besides it only has room for 4 icons. What i do find usefull is the stop that Zone has. BUt i don't know if that works. IF you ask me, sygate has the upperhand. But thats just personal opinion.